|Received:||5/25/2005 1:17:23 AM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
|Rule:||Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act|
Comments:I have noted various antagonistic marketers' dislikes for the proposed 3 day removal. Yes; it may be an inconvenience for them. Tough!! These antagonistic marketers do not own the email addresses of me or my users; nor any other email addresses of anyone else beyond their own servers. Their email is allowed only 'by permission'; and I don't see '10 days' anywhere in those two words. spam is email without permisssion. *Antagonistic* marketers have been the major impediment in all previous attempts at effective legislation at state and federal levels. I am personally familiar with Washington State's CHAPTER 19.190 RCW; having spent many hours at hearings and testifying at same. My personal opinion is that many of the marketer's comments and complaints were unfounded and/or intended confuse those without knowledge of email and email systems. What these same *Antagonistic* marketers fail to realise is that if both users and non-antagonistic reputable mailing marketers cooperated; a working law could be created that could severely affect spammers operation *if* endowed with funding and enforcement capability. It would reward reputable marketers and users alike as a level of trust could return to email use. It may be too late though; the trust in email to the average user is rapidly dropping. Spammers have ruined it. They are the ultimate *antagonistic* marketers.